zemax_set_apodizationSet the aperture apodization type and factor in Ansys Zemax OpticStudio to define pupil transmission profiles for optical simulations.
Set aperture apodization type and factor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| factor | Yes | Apodization factor | |
| apodizationType | Yes | Apodization type |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation but never says what state is affected, whether the change is reversible, what persists on save, or whether an active connection/system is required — a significant gap for a state-changing tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single tight sentence with the action and targets front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though brevity here borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a required-two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves key agent-facing questions unanswered: valid apodization type values, factor semantics, and preconditions. It is not complete enough to call correctly without outside knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented structurally and the baseline is 3. The description only echoes 'type and factor' without clarifying accepted apodization type strings (0 enums) or the meaning/range of the factor, adding nothing beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb+resource pair ('set aperture apodization') plus the two values being set, so an agent knows exactly what changes. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling zemax_get_apodization, though the set/get contrast is inferable from the names.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites (e.g., a system must be open/connected), and no mention of the read-side alternative zemax_get_apodization for inspection first. Usage is only implied by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.